Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BootNet (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 28 November 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Javed Haider Zaidi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


November 21

00:14, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Ch4mpezz

I do not think there is anything wrong with the references because personally i got it all from that website. I put the reference that shows the exact part of the site where i wrote the paragraphs about! Ch4mpezz (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ch4mpezz: Your article has to be in English. And those sources do not show why the subject is notable. Please read the advice in the decline notice. You need in-depth secondary sources. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got it all from that website is precisely the problem. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
You need to find independent sources, and base the article almost entirely on them. The school's own website cannot contribute anything at all to establishing that the school meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:19, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Mohammad Husen

I am a contributor of Wikipedia, I have working in many Articles. It's one of the draft article by me. Please work here to improve it. Mohammad Husen (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohammad Husen: this draft has been each time declined for lack of evidence of notability; that is basically an issue with the sources, which aren't sufficient to demonstrate that the subject is notable. It is up to you to find and cite adequate sources, we can't do that for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:43, 21 November 2023 review of submission by JamesTheOrganGeek

Why is it not>? JamesTheOrganGeek (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesTheOrganGeek: "why is it not" what? This draft was rejected and has subsequently been deleted, apparently at your own request. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:07, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Drgoel007

why my article was declined as per best of my knowledge i added reliable refereces which can be cross verified from your side and there is nothig against wiki policies. Drgoel007 (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drgoel007: it was declined because the sources are not sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG; with the exception of the Express article, they are all either primary or passing mentions.
If this is yourself that you're writing about, then please be aware that you shouldn't; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:22, 21 November 2023 review of submission by BVECJordan

please help me to create this new articles BVECJordan (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BVECJordan: you're swearing on your talk page at everyone and everything, and you're removing the AfC templates from this draft although I asked you not to... yet now you want help?
Okay, one more time: "Tourist attraction place" is not something that is inherently notable, so you need to either reframe this as a natural feature, or establish notability by citing sources which satisfy the WP:GNG guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
☺️🙏🙏😆😆😆😆
I don't care what u say respected senior writer.
I respect u but this time i want not to .
It's just I want to publish this article very badly
U can do whatever ever u want
I am just notorious writer.
You can block or report my account
U can block my ip address.
I don't care.
It's just I follows Wikipedia guidelines hardly.
Anyone follow hardly this days BVECJordan (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Josammy777

I edited my draft with many reliable sources from Congo my native country. We have 12 publications on my work, Bibliography, Books, foundation, Patents, and the impact of my work in 3 reliable source such as: HorizonAfricain, la depeche de Brazzaville, La semaine Africaine. They displayed all informations with about 10 publication. However, the draft was declined why ? and we should improve the work Josammy777 (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Josammy777: as it says in the decline notice and adjoining comment, this draft is completely unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. You need to find multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG guideline and summarise what they say about the subject, citing them as you go. See WP:YFA for advice on article creation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Johnmark2384

Hello , I made an initial submission of the above article related to Ravindu Nawanjana ( Draft:Ravindu Nawanjana ) on Nov 15th , and since then I made a few additions to his portfolio and resubmitted it today and was declined. Was the article declined because the data about the candidate is not enough or is it because of the less references made by external sources?

I have also seen many stubs with relatively less information approved by wiki.

Also , any guidance on getting the article accepted would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You Johnmark2384 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnmark2384 That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone, please see other stuff exists. These articles you have seen could also be inappropriate and simply not addressed yet by a volunteer. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible in many ways to get inappropriate content past us, this cannot justify the addition of more inapprpropriate content. If you would like to help us, you can work to identify other inappropriate articles for possible action. We need the help.
Wikipedia is not a a place to just tell about someone and what they do- you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about this person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. What do sources say is important/significant/influential about this man? (not what he or his associates thinks is important about himself) That's what Wikipedia wants to know. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use other articles as an example or model, use those classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:20, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Rayhanulhaque1

Why my article has been rejuct Rayhanulhaque1 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayhanulhaque1: because this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about yourself, unless you're notable, and even then you should leave it to others to write about you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Pratik.S2005

Pls make the page more reliable for that It can be published as soon as possible. ... Pratik.S2005 (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratik.S2005: the two sources are not sufficient to establish notability; we usually need 3+, and they should provide significant coverage of the subject, whereas at least one of these is just routine business reporting.
There is no rush to publish this, as Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline. Take your time to find solid sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Alucard F Tepes

Hello, I am trying to publish my first article regarding World Fisheries Day. I noticed there wasn't a Wikipedia page some months ago but didn't think much of it; today, however, I decided to search extensively and confirmed there isn't a Wikipedia article yet.

So I wrote this today. I added a lot of references at first, but that seemed to trigger a refusal; therefore, I removed references that seemed unnecessary and only kept what I considered noteworthy. Can someone check if there's anything wrong with the article, please? I lack experience as this is the first time I've done it. Thanks in advance. Alucard F Tepes (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alucard F Tepes: the draft is promotional in tone; Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral, factual manner.
It only cites two sources, one of which is YouTube. (It also lists, without citing, several sources, but that's not very useful as it isn't clear why they're there since they're not being cited. And not all of them are reliable.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your comment. I changed the entirety of the draft and tried to change the tone to be neutral. I removed YouTube sources and added better references, such as official reports and event announcements, while also citing them. Is there anything else I should change, add, or do? I would like any recommendations so I can improve, please. Alucard F Tepes (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alucard F Tepes: you need to show that the subject is notable per WP:GNG, which the currently cited sources don't achieve.
Also, there are still those six external links listed in the 'References' section without them being actually cited anywhere. Why are they there? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From those 6 external links, 5 are cited in the draft as reference for something that I wrote, or to show where it came from. I am unsure if there is a mistake in the format I used since the links appear twice in references, but 5 of the 6 are cited.
I am also going to research more in order to show what you are mentioning "notable per WP:GNG" I'll give an update when I do Alucard F Tepes (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 21 November 2023 review of submission by 178.165.181.175

Hi, I experienced a third negative review of my draft. The last reviewer didn’t leave any comment and did not reply to my questions. I am wondering, since my subject does meet four criteria of notability, why my draft still needs additional sources. It is very difficult to know how many references are enough. Also some references I used were flagged as unreliable but they do appear on another serious Wikipedia page ( on th Museum of Applied Arts of Vienna) so I don’t understand why they are not accepted on my draft. Could you please help me with this issue? I have a ph.D. and I am used to very strict, clear and transparent rules for sources reliability. Here, I feel left in the dark. Especially, I feel that the books quoted (not available online) are not considered as reliable. Although they are actually more serious sources. Thank you very much for your help, Catherine Lemieux 178.165.181.175 (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Catherine Lemieux another editor has responded on the draft's talk page (Draft talk:Patrick Rampelotto) so please respond there. S0091 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Catherine Lemieux (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Tomtomwaran

Hi, I received a message that the proposed topic does not qualify for the notability standards of Wikipedia. I went through the criteria in the article here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) . Which of the notability criteria is most problematic? Would it make sense if I provided other sources? Or should I edit the text and in what direction? Thank you. Your help would be much appreciated because I would like to edit and re-submit my proposal. Tomtomwaran (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are writing about a broad field, not a specific company, so the general notability criteria are what applies. You need to summarize independent reliable sources that discuss this field in depth. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:19, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Russell Bassett

Hey why'd you decline it, may i have a reason please? Russell Bassett (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not only declined, it was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The reviewer left a reason at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Balalaka21

Hello. Which kind of problems should I fix, before resubmitting draft? Balalaka21 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you should find references according to the decline message. Ca talk to me! 13:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been accepted. (Happened while I was trying to decline it.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have declined this too as not notable and advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Bigbossdol

I need some help making my submission suitable, as I feel I have already included reliable references and sources. I have used government websites, industry information websites as well as long standing and respected hobbyist websites on the subject matter. A similar page already exists which uses exactly the same sources Craigkelly transmitting station and I believe my submission is comparable with this, please can I get some support with what I should do ? Bigbossdol (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigbossdol: there is unreferenced content (several small paragraphs without any citations), and the lead section is supported by search engine results which are not valid sources. To avoid original research or synthesis, please only summarise what reliable published sources have said about the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 21 November 2023 review of submission by 2603:300C:196D:300:59B8:D54A:2237:CBA3

how do i get my real micronation that i established and gave ownership to burger king on wikipedia 

2603:300C:196D:300:59B8:D54A:2237:CBA3 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 21 November 2023 review of submission by EdwinThornton75

What is wrong with this article? It is all properly sourced about a small artist online. EdwinThornton75 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EdwinThornton75: what's wrong is that there is no evidence that the subject is notable, either by the WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are zero independent reliable sources and Zero indication of passing WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 21 November 2023 review of submission by GAALIIAV

Hi, i know there is a problem with the references i'm using in this page, but i can't find others references. There are some tools i can use to find new references? GAALIIAV (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot find other references, this team likely does not merit an article. You have gone about this backwards, you should first gather sources before writing the draft. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Malexof

I need help with this article. The problem is in reliable sources. But I have used Boxrec as a reliable source and saw the Boxrec as a source on the pages of other sportsmen. I filled this page by analogy with other pages already published in Wikipedia. For example, here: Iago Kiladze Why is this article approved (they used the same link on Boxrec), but mine is not? Malexof (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malexof That another article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. You should avoid using random articles as a model that themselves could be inappropriate, and you would be unaware of it. See other stuff exists. Use good articles as a model.331dot (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Malexof: the Kiladze article was published eight years ago and never went through the AfC review process, so it wasn't "approved" in the same way. In any case, you shouldn't model your articles on existing articles, which may well have their own problems, but should instead follow the relevant guidelines applicable today.
We need to see multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria. A single source isn't enough, either to establish notability or to reliably support the contents.
Alternatively, if you can prove (using reliable sources) that the subject meets WP:NBOXING, then that would be an alternative approach. It doesn't look like it, though? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:21, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Kimbamy

Hi, I would like to find a talk page to discuss about this draft : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carmelo_Pipitone thank you in advance 

Kimbamy (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kimbamy, feel free to ask any questions you may have here? Qcne (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you! I have made this draft. I think the coverage is enough. can you help me understanding what is missing exactly. I am not an expert. I have read the rules but I cannot fix it. thank you in advance. Kimbamy (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing @Kimbamy. Let me go through your references one by one. Note that musical artists need to pass the WP:NMUSICIAN criteria, this means finding multiple secondary sources that are independent of Carmelo (not interviews), and provide significant coverage with discussion/debate/analysis:
  1. An interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
  2. An interview, so cannot be used to establish notability.
  3. This works as a source.
  4. This works as a source.
  5. This is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Carmelo.
  6. This is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Carmelo.
  7. This works as a source.
  8. This is about the album, not Carmelo- it can be used to source the album but not establish notability.
  9. Not significant coverage.
I think you are close to proving notability under WP:NMUSICIAN, but not quite there. If you could find a couple more independent secondary sources that discuss Carmelo I think it would get over teh line.
My other advice is to format your sources proper, so they include the full URL, access date, author, etc. See the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Also your External Links section is too big, only include a max of two external links. See the policy at WP:EXTERNAL. The Discography is also unsourced, but you can use a primary source for this. The Insound Award award is also unsourced?
Let me know if you can fix all that, by pinging me here or my User talk page, and I will have another look.
Hope that helps. Qcne (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are very kind @Qcne. and your answer is very detailed.
I'll try to get through. Thank you! Kimbamy (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne if you can check when you have time. no hurry:)
that's what i did:
- I added 2 sources (ref 6 and 7). I think (hope) can be considered as independent. Can you check also if the format is correct? If ok I will do also the other references like that.
- I removed the external links as requested.
- The Insound Award is cited on ref 2 ( I have more references about this, in italian, if needed )
Thank you in advance Kimbamy (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've accepted that, I think it puts it over the line. Please add some WP:CATEGORIES :) Qcne (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much again @Qcne! Kimbamy (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:29, 21 November 2023 review of submission by Architect encyclopedia

I published before I had written the article and it has been rejected Architect encyclopedia (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can let the reviewer know that it was not complete when you submitted it, they may reconsider.
Note that you cannot use Wikipedia articles as a references for other Wikipedia articles, see WP:CIRCULAR. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9: Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed the rejection. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pinging Architect encyclopedia in case they aren't following this discussion. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

00:56, 22 November 2023 review of submission by Dbolwerk rec

Can you please elaborate exactly what is wrong with this article? I've removed all external links except for one to Dairyland's website which, based on other pages similar to ours that have been published, is acceptable. I've tightened it up so there is no editorializing. I appreciate any additional insight to making this suitable for publication per Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you, in advance. Dbolwerk rec (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbolwerk rec: please understand that we don't catalogue every business and other entity that exists, merely because they exist; we publish articles on subjects with notability and encyclopaedic value. There is very little of that even suggested in this draft, and even less evidenced; hence this has been now declined three times for lack of notability. That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with this.
You also appear to have an external relationship with the subject, which needs to be disclosed. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions.
And please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by a single individual only. I mention that since you imply there may be more than one of you involved in editing this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dbolwerk rec. You did not even bother to wikilink to Touchstone Energy Cooperative, which might have offered readers some context. But far more important is that vast swathes of your draft are entirely unreferenced, violating the core content policies of Verifiability and No original research. Do you expect readers to read and believe what you wrote just because you say so? A high quality encyclopedia does not work that way. Cullen328 (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:42, 22 November 2023 review of submission by 5.179.86.61

Let me publish pls. The site is just as relevant as everything else on the platform 5.179.86.61 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An entirely unreferenced draft is a policy violation. All such drafts are rejected on sight. Cullen328 (talk)

09:57, 22 November 2023 review of submission by Giltedged

Hi there,

This article was quite involved and quite time consuming to collect detailed reference material on,

Can someone please provide some input as to why this submission needs improvement?

If it is minor, maybe chip in and help finish the article?

Thanks!! Giltedged (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left a message about the concerns at the top of the draft. We're not here to be co-authors, but you may find a relevant WikiProject that may have editors willing to assist. This individual seems to own a bar and be in the news, but it's not clear how they are notable. They seem to be New Zealand's version of Lauren Boebert(who owned a bar by the same name) though they don't hold public office. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:07, 22 November 2023 review of submission by Randommuzik

I'm an artist, randommuzik on all platforms, I'm trying to write a few about me here and its has frustrating doing that. Randommuzik (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Randommuzik. Only musicians who pass our strict WP:NMUSIC criteria may have articles written about them. You have done nothing to prove you meet that criteria. Qcne (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've a few of this WP:NMUSIC criteria, i thought I was the one who would write about me, until now. please if you can assist me in anyway I would really appreciate thank you. Randommuzik (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you become notable enough to pass our criteria, then eventually someone will write a Wikipedia article about you. As it stands your draft had zero sources so does not prove notability. Qcne (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly do not know what I should write on my draft for me to be notable, if you can tell what to do I'll really appreciate, being able to text someone here is a relief, because I be feeling like I was coding when I created an account with you guys. Randommuzik (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Randommuzik writing a Wikipedia article for the first time is one of the most difficult tasks a new editor can do. I would suggest you are not yet notable by our standards and therefore cannot have a Wikipedia article at this time. Qcne (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
okay thank you. Randommuzik (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randommuzik (ec) You placed your text within coding to conceal its display(though it still appears in the edit window). I removed this, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources state about musicians that meet our notability criteria, Wikipedia is not interested in what people say about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:16, 22 November 2023 review of submission by Manojwiki2021

please help to get my article published, the person is a Sahitya Akademi Award winners for Assamese in 2022 Manojwiki2021 (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please choose the three (and only three) best sources that prove notability under WP:NAUTHOR. The sources must be:
- independent (not interviews)
- reliable (not Facebook)
- secondary (not primary) Qcne (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Manojwiki2021: so far you haven't presented sufficient evidence that the person is notable. In any case, this won't be accepted unless you resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 22 November 2023 review of submission by 5.195.211.73

I'm trying to create a page for tamanna.com it's a well known business in Kuwait 5.195.211.73 (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been deleted as promotional. It may be a well-known business, but that is no licence to use Wikipedia as a marketing channel.
If you have a registered user account (such as Mnabilmohamed001), please make sure to log into it when editing.
And if you have a relationship with this business, you need to disclose it: see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 22 November 2023 review of submission by VZs76

Dear Editors,

I have recently created an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:M%C3%A1rton_Nagy), which was declined, with the editor noting (after the second submission attempt) that the article still needs further incline citations.

However, parts of the article ("Early career" and "Deputy Governor of the Hungarian National Bank") are based on the official CV of the politician, available on the official website of the European Investment Bank (https://www01.eib.org/attachments/documents/cv-marton-nagy-en.pdf). If there are no other sources to support the information (other than the info provided in the CV), what steps should I take?

Regards, VZs76 (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VZs76: it may well be that everything you state is supported by one or another of the cited sources, but if you don't tell us (by way of citations) which source it is, that doesn't really help the reader verify the information, as they would need to check each of the sources for each of the statements. As a bare minimum, each paragraph should have at least one citation, as otherwise it is unsupported, and a long paragraph almost certainly should have more than one. The reader should never need to ask "where did that information come from?"
If you use the same source more than once, you should ideally use named references, to avoid inflating the 'References' section unnecessarily; see WP:NAMEDREFS for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the tip, the article has been recently published! VZs76 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 22 November 2023 review of submission by GertrudKahl

Dear Help desk, my article on Alfons Zeileis was declined saying it contained not sufficient secondary sources. In fact I cited a lot of independent newspapers with reviews on exhibitions in which Alfons Zeileis is reviewed alone or alongside other painters. Why are independent newspapers not secondary sources? To make it clear, that the references are not just archived material of Alfons Zeileis but secondary sources about him, I added the explanation to the sources. Will this be sufficient? There are many more references about Alfons Zeileis as about for example his fellow student Giorgio de Chirico. I will be grateful for any hint. GertrudKahl (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GertrudKahl: it may be that there are sufficient secondary sources included, but if so, they are quite well masked. For example, ref #12 reads

Review of the exhibition with mention of Alfons Zeileis in the newspaper Der Rheinpfälzer 18 October 1927 and Landauer Anzeiger 21 October 1927 both in reviews about artists: Newspaper clippings ordered together by Karl Graf, Pfälzer Landesbibliothek Speyer.

You have to read all of that to realise that it mentions a newspaper called Der Rheinpfälzer. It should be formatted using the correct template, {{cite news}} or {{cite magazine}}.
And even then, it doesn't really provide sufficient detail to allow the precise source to be identified; please see WP:OFFLINE for advice on correctly citing offline sources.
And yes, some of the sources clearly aren't published secondary sources, eg. #38 and #40.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that "An exchange of letters" is NOT a suitable source neither is " List by Anneliese Zeileis, the daughter of Alfons Zeileis." sources need to be published. Theroadislong (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 22 November 2023 review of submission by Alexandrsashin

Could anybody explain me the issues with references in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luna_Sabella  ?

> This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. 

Alexandrsashin (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The style of writing is NOT encyclopaedic and more suited to a magazine article. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What can I change to make it more encyclopedic? Alexandrsashin (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her father is of Italian descent: Which independent source is cited for this information.
which is why Luna loves everything to do with Italy: 1) non sequitur. 2) Which independent source is cited for this information? 3)Why does it belong in an encyclopaedia article about her?
She is keen on music, dance and show business: Which independent source is cited for this information? 2) Why does it use the colloquial "keen on" rather than a more formal phrase. ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a right question. There is an answer - such information is from https://www.esc-plus.com/downloads/handbook-jesc-2022.pdf and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WySij6WyPus. If I add these references to several paragraphs then I duplicate them in the reference list. Alexandrsashin (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her father is of Italian descent and this influenced her preferences in life and creativity.
Is it better?
I'd like to save this connection because of it relates to "La Festa" and "Pico Bello" songs. Alexandrsashin (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces what do you think about such comments? Alexandrsashin (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is unlikely that either of the references you give is independent of her: the biography almost certainly comes from Sabella and her team.
While you can use non-independent sources for uncontroversial factual information such as dates and places, unless an independent commentator has chosen to talk about her father's origin and the effect of this on her music, it simply does not belong in the article. ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback! I changed the beginning of "Biography" block. Are there other problematic sentences? Alexandrsashin (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 22 November 2023 review of submission by Rahmanibnusaid

It's a Professional Football Club from India,and why can't create a page. Rahmanibnusaid (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahmanibnusaid: because there is no evidence that the club is notable, which is why this draft has been rejected. Not only that, but the subject has gone through no fewer than three AfD discussions, so you would need to make a particularly compelling case for an article to be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Sir,How can you say the club doesn't exist. That Club currently plays in our State League and I provided it's website and else details, How much more should I need to provide, can u explain how is it possible. Rahmanibnusaid (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rahmanibnusaid No one has said that the club does not exist. Not everything that exists merits a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a database of things that exist, there are criteria for inclusion. As noted, there has been three deletion discussions regarding articles about this club, so you will have to build a very good case that the notability criteria for organizations has been met. You haven't done that here. You'll need to move on from this topic. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway i haven't expected this much quick reply from your side, appreciating Wikipedia Staffs alot🤍 Rahmanibnusaid (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no staff, we are volunteers from around tbe world. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just meaned you guys. Rahmanibnusaid (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 22 November 2023 review of submission by SparrowsQuest

Can you point me to information on how to cite post-graduate degrees. Thank you for your assistance. SparrowsQuest (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SparrowsQuest: what do you mean by that? If the person has postgrad qualifications, you cite any reliable source that states that, usually the one where you discovered the said fact. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SparrowsQuest the easiest way would be to find and cite the thesis for which they received the degree. -- asilvering (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:07, 22 November 2023 review of submission by AJIT30071990

hi needs support AJIT30071990 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft consists of a single sentence "Ajit Kumar singh is an Indian born 30 july 1990" there is zero evidence that you are notable so minimal chance of the draft being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 22 November 2023 review of submission by 193.207.113.152

I've added all info and reliable sources I could find. They are sufficient for her notability. 193.207.113.152 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've requested here, you can immediately delete it. 193.207.113.152 (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Place a {{db-g7}} tag to delete the article Mach61 (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 23

00:56, 23 November 2023 review of submission by JasonPererafit

Is there anything i can do for this? this person is an actor JasonPererafit (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Not all actors merit Wikipedia articles, see the criteria. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 23 November 2023 review of submission by 2012shahab

Kyrgyz International University NRZ is a private university and approved by minstry of science and education kyrgyzstan. 2012shahab (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2012shahab, Draft:Kyrgyz International University NRZ is entirely unreferenced. In its current form, it violates two core content policies, Verifiability and No original research. The draft will never be accepted without adding references. Please study Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:40, 23 November 2023 review of submission by Cristygarna

Why this is not considered for review Cristygarna (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cristygarna, Draft:Kallad has not been submitted for review. If you submitted it, it would be promptly declined, because it is unreferenced. Please study Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 23 November 2023 review of submission by Ghsimr1995

I had created an article for Institute of Hospitality, Management and Sciences. It was for informational purposes. But it has been around a month, that article is in draft, and I am not getting any option to submit this article for review. Please help me

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Institute_of_Hospitality,_Management_and_Sciences 

Ghsimr1995 (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghsimr1995: the draft had not been submitted, so it would have just sat there in the draft space for six months until deleted. It has been submitted now, and should be reviewed soon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you forgot to add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. I went ahead and submitted it for you. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I got a notification that I have taken monetary benefits to create this article on Wikipedia, but i want to inform that I have not taken any benefits from anyone in any way to create this article. Where i can mention this? Ghsimr1995 (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 23 November 2023 review of submission by Mdshahinneel7

Md Shahin Miah Mdshahinneel7 (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdshahinneel7: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself; for that, you'll need to find some social media or blogging platform. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:24, 23 November 2023 review of submission by Grey1092

Hello, I want to know how to improve this as I found there are no pages on Wikipedia on Organism 46-B. Some help on how to get this published without it getting rejected would be highly appreciated. Grey1092 (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grey1092: Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject.
Wikihow and fandom aren't reliable sources. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for specifying! I will try to find more reliable sources, but how would I find reliable sources for a conspiracy theory? Grey1092 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grey1092 That might be difficult. If it's not a widely held theory, there unfortunately might not be enough sources to support a Wikipedia article. See WP:FRINGE. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 23 November 2023 review of submission by Auto Muziejus

Do i need published sources for wiki page in english, i can add native (Lithuanian) sources? Page is about museum in capital of Lithuania. Auto Muziejus (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Auto Muziejus: sources do not have to be in English, as long as they otherwise meet the standard in terms of reliability etc.
I'm assuming, judging by your username, that you have a connection to the subject. This needs to be disclosed. I will post instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I would add that what is acceptable on the Lithuanian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here- the English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. This museum will need to be shown to meet our definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i work there, and we want to be on the wikipedias "map". Auto Muziejus (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. In that case, please make your paid editing disclosure now. (You probably need to make it on the Lithuanian Wikipedia as well, but I'll leave that between you and them.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 23 November 2023 review of submission by SiCebuTransmissionCorrecter

I don't have knowledge to know that the article was made in the Philippines, I don't also have news articles found on my search, so sorry, the page was editable so you can correct it. SiCebuTransmissionCorrecter (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If the sources do not exist, no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 23 November 2023 review of submission by TradingSpousesWelsch

My article draft was declined with the note "Please ensure you declare any conflict of interest on your user page." I don't have any conflict of interest. I'm in no way associated with the subject of the article and I don't think it's fair my article being declined based on a false accusation. If there's any actual constructive advice I could get on how to improve my draft I will gladly take it, but the editor who declined my article didn't even give any. It's my first article so I just want to learn how to improve it. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TradingSpousesWelsch If you have no conflict of interest, okay, but you tripped an edit filter as a possible COI and wrote in a highly promotional style. One reviewr did leave you extensive advice at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TradingSpousesWelsch: there was no accusation. The message means if you have a conflict of interest, then make sure to disclose it. If you don't have one, that's great. It's not an unreasonable thing to query, given that your first substantive edit after registering your user account was to create this draft; that does often indicate that the user has some sort of a real life connection with the subject.
In any case, the draft wasn't declined because of a possible COI, it was declined as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I make it less promotional? I have an interest hobby-wise in Canadian companies which is why I wrote it, but when doing my research, I couldn't find anything negative or critical about the company. I tried to write it from a neutral point of view and I removed any language that was overly gushy or complimentary of the company. I would be happy to make any further improvements to make it sound less promotional. TradingSpousesWelsch (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have mostly summarized the routine activities of the company (like the opening and closing of locations), which does not establish notability. Please see WP:ORG if you haven't already. Wikipedia needs to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a business and what makes it important/significant/influential. The vast majority of businesses do not merit Wikipedia articles, just as the vast majority of people do not. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TradingSpousesWelsch Please look at your prose, which is great for a magazine article, but fails for Wikipedia. We need "dull-but-worthy" prose, very flat, totally factual.
Also look at what 331dot has said just above. That comes first, my comment comes second. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 23 November 2023 review of submission by Jm33746

Hi How do I fix this article to get it approved Jm33746 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the advice left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 23 November 2023 review of submission by Preksha30

I am not able to understand why is this page getting rejected. Preksha30 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by the last reviewer, "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." Wikipedia is not a place to just tell the world about someone and their good work. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:20, 23 November 2023 review of submission by Tarkik King

I am Tarkik Bhawsar. I am a professional musician & youtuber. Even google recognizes me. I am requesting this on behalf of @Tarkik Bhawsar vevo Tarkik King (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So which is it? Are you Tarkik Bhawsar or aren't you? In any event, you haven't created a draft. You promoted this person on your user page, which is not permitted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 23 November 2023 review of submission by Mynulislam44

Dear sir please actived my account Mynulislam44 (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mynulislam44: this draft has been deleted as promotional; please don't create more of the same.
Your user account is self-evidently active, as you've managed to post this message. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 23 November 2023 review of submission by 182.190.213.219

I need help! I have provided many reliable resources but still mods are denying my article please look into those references which clearly prove my given information 😶 182.190.213.219 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "mods" or admins declining, just editors. Please heed the advice they have given you. The main issue is that your text is styled and structured as an essay and not an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:18, 23 November 2023 review of submission by JimC3930

I must not understand the procedure. I want to edit and create Wikipedia pages. It seems I need to do this starting with a sandbox and that I have to publish my sandbox. Is this correct? JimC3930 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted your sandbox for a review as an article draft, but it had no substantive content. You went beyond clicking "publish changes"(which just means "save") It's best to use Article Wizard to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 23 November 2023 review of submission by Asianfg

I have submitted a new page for review, which I appreciate the reviewer notes that the page does not meet the requirements of NCORP for organisations. Since similar 'organisations' such as the Sydney Youth Orchestra and Adelaide Youth Orchestra have far less details and cited sources, I wonder if I am mis-categorising the Canberra Youth Orchestra as an organisation. Is there another category I should be using? Based on the content of similar youth orchestras would it be better if I reduced the content to a few lines to at least have the page listed that would then allow others to edit/enhace? Asianfg (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asianfg Please read other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and just not addressed yet by a volunteer, and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, inappropriate articles can get by us. If you want to use other articles as an example or model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Are you associated with this orchestra?
Are you writing about the orchestra as an organization or as a musical group, where the relevant criteria is WP:BAND? Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something and what they do- an article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to tell others about the draft for them to edit it, but this is not the process to create a stub. Articles do not need to be complete, but they do need to meet the minimum criteria. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

05:21, 24 November 2023 review of submission by 2.177.92.112

Hello, can you help me to edit this article I have little knowledge in the field of editing and basic editing of articles and I want help to stabilize this article for approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ahmad_Bayati I put all the sources and references in the article, and because there are few specific articles with this person's name, he mostly photographed for news agencies and government places. And only in the exif of the photo is his nam

I have no experience in professional editing and editing. Please help me in editing and improving. Thank you. 2.177.92.112 (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an editing problem, it's a referencing problem. Most of the contents are unsupported, and the few sources cited are insufficient to establish notability. You need to find 3+ sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, summarise what they say, and cite them against the information they've provided. (In theory, instead of GNG you could also try to show notability per WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, but nothing in the draft suggests this is likely.) This needs to be your primary focus: without notability, there can never be an article on this subject; with notability established, everything else can be sorted out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 24 November 2023 review of submission by 168.215.209.186

I just hire any expert to work on this draft because I believe this author is very skilled. He deserves to be read in all the world. I just want to hire any expert to work on this draft. I volunteered myself to display the work of this author. He is very skilled. 168.215.209.186 (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah whatever. You won't find any guns-for-hire here, and it's not an approach I would advocate in any case. Please don't create more of these, I've had at least one version deleted already, and about to request the same on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know the IP creates any more drafts and I'll block it from editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: just checked, and the earlier draft was created by a different IP user User_talk:108.211.130.61, with the IP (seemingly) geolocating to a different part of the country. Still, must be connected somehow? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:00, 24 November 2023 review of submission by HITECH1230

my acc HITECH1230 (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HITECH1230: you don't ask a question, but this draft (such as it is) has been rejected, and is now awaiting deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HITECH1230. Your extremely brief draft bears no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article, and is about to be deleted. Please study Your first article. Also, you should change your username, since it indicates possible shared use and promotional intent, both of which are contrary to policy. Please read Wikipedia:Changing username. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:21, 24 November 2023 review of submission by 168.215.209.186

could you provide an expert to edit for us this page 168.215.209.186 (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it already. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:18, 24 November 2023 review of submission by Arnoldasarny

Hi guys, I have created a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:TARDZA but it has been rejected. The object of that page is well recognised and there are a lot of media (both www, youtube and podcast) publications about it. I have just added more of them just to prove its value. I have also added more text which explains more of its uniqueness and importance (for the automotive world at least). Arnoldasarny (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnoldasarny: I stand by my rejection, and will recuse myself from this discussion, but if you find consensus of other reviewers willing to accept this then they're welcome to revert me and proceed.
Just one question: if you had more content and sources, why did you wait until after rejection to add those? When I reviewed this, the entirety of the draft read as

"#TARDZA is a nickname for a Porsche 911 3.2 Carrera Targa from 1984, restored by car artist Paweł Kalinowski in 2020."

Regardless of sources, that is very far from a viable encyclopaedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I appreciate your response. When I drafted it yesterday, it got rejected for sounding too promotional. Looking at some examples, I aimed for brevity, but your feedback makes me realize it ended up lacking information. I'm not entirely sure if I've expressed it perfectly even now, as it still doesn't seem to convince you. I am 100% sure it is worth to be on Wikipedia and I am ready to work on it as much as needed. Could you please let me know how to reach out your colleagues to re-look it? Or maybe a few more comments you could give me so it is more prefessional at the end? I am not a writer or a journalist but Wikipedia is not about that right:) Arnoldasarny (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnoldasarny honestly, this belongs in the article about Paweł Kalinowski rather than being a stand-alone article, given that article is rather short and it would serve the few readers better (it only gets a handful of page views daily, with some days none). Also, none of the YouTube videos are reliable sources nor is Instagram so they should not be used anywhere. S0091 (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 24 November 2023 review of submission by 138.84.40.49

I got this message from a bot: 

		‪FireflyBot‬ left a message on your talk page in "‪Concern regarding User:Oasis2019/sandbox‬".

Hello, Oasis2019. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Oasis2019/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least... So I edited my Sandbox, but then it turns out it wasn’t necessary as a previous article was being reviewed. Can anybody clarify what needs to be done? 138.84.40.49 (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please log into you account to make communication easier. What the bot is telling you is User:Oasis2019/sandbox will be deleted as an abandoned draft if you do not not edit it. Given this is a duplicate of Draft:Chris von Christierson, I suggest letting your sandbox be deleted as it serves no purpose, creates confusion and will allow your sandbox to be recreated for other purposes. S0091 (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 24 November 2023 review of submission by Amalamepadath

New upcoming game details Amalamepadath (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:56, 24 November 2023 review of submission by 182.190.213.219

Need assistance to fix citations and reference lines. 

182.190.213.219 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to log in to your account User:SaneFlint first. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 25

00:51, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Lear419

The draft was rejected because it didn't cite secondary sources. The GitHub FRET project has references to a couple of dozen publications from organizations other than NASA involving the use of FRET as well as its relationship to formal methods. Here are a couple of samples:

Ivan Perez, Anastasia Mavridou, Thomas Pressburger, Alwyn Goodloe, Dimitra Giannakopoulou. Integrating FRET with Copilot: Automated Translation of Natural Language Requirements to Runtime Monitors, NASA/TM–20220000049, January 2022.

Zsófia Ádám, Ignacio D. Lopez-Miguel, Anastasia Mavridou, Thomas Pressburger, Marcin Bęś, Enrique Blanco Viñuela, Andreas Katis, Jean-Charles Tournier, Khanh V. Trinh, Borja Fernandez Adiego. From Natural Language Requirements to the Verification of Programmable Logic Controllers: Integrating FRET into PLCverif, NFM 2023.

Is that what you are looking for as secondary sources? Lear419 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lear419: just to clarify, this draft was declined (not 'rejected') because it failed to show that the subject is notable, which is demonstrated through referencing. At the time of review, it didn't cite a single source, ergo no evidence of notability.
You can read about secondary sources here WP:SECONDARY, and about the general notability guideline here WP:GNG. You may also wish to take a look at WP:NSOFTWARE (an essay, rather than a formal policy statement) specifically. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:54, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Xwallawallax

\ Help with academic researcher profile page Hello,

I am seeking input on how to improve this page: Draft:Saad Bhamla


It was rejected on the following grounds:

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth and

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.


Having read the eight academic-specific criteria, it is clear that Prof. Bhamla meets several of these. I have also cited reliable secondary sources (e.g., NSF, NIH, etc.) to support this assertion.


I do need some help on the advertisement vs encyclopedia rejection. Most academic bios are written in the form that I supplied, but any tips on converting it into an encyclopedia-style diction would be appreciated. Xwallawallax (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xwallawallax I've fixed your post to provide a link to your draft.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the accomplishments and accolades of a person. That is considered advertising. I would urge you to read the notability criteria carefully to learn more about what is being looked for when you assert that an individual meets them. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xwallawallax: please don't ask for support both here and at the Teahouse (and certainly not within minutes of each other), as this wastes volunteer effort when multiple contributors are taking part in multiple conversations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My fault - did not realize they were separate forums until after I posted at Teahouse (and realized that was the incorrect place to post). 73.155.253.30 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:51, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Ninjascrollqc

im trying to make this page that looks like this other journalist :Yoani Sánchez

But im having a hard time to find all the coding or format to add all the required information, example , interviews that the journalist received, conferences where he participated, the schollarship he participated in europe, life in Canada and his career as Journalist and Programmer. Ninjascrollqc (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjascrollqc Your draft is actually in your sandbox, so I've fixed your link to it. We also don't need the whole url when linking to another article on Wikipedia, so I've fixed that.
Drafts created in a sandbox need the submission template added manually, I've done this for you so you can submit it. This information is provided automatically if you use the Article Wizard to create a draft. Before you submit it, you will need to format the references properly, instead of having bare urls. Please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 25 November 2023 review of submission by 2409:40C4:C:DD87:8000:0:0:0

I have information about thebandwala.. There is a website on this topic and indiam udyog registration of thebandwala taken on 2021. Are these 2 sources will be enough for refference of this title ? 2409:40C4:C:DD87:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to log into your account as it make communication easier. Their website is primary source and not independent so not useful. Read through all the links in the decline message which outlines the type of sources needed. S0091 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Le Palais de Tokyo

Hello everyone at the Teahouse! I recently submitted my first article draft, and unfortunately, it was declined. I'm seeking some guidance on how to improve it and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. I'm eager to learn and make the necessary changes, so any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help! Le Palais de Tokyo (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Palais de Tokyo the draft reads like a listing of things they have done sourced to themselves or routine announcements/press releases with no independent in-depth coverage about them. What they say or want to say about themselves is not useful, nor are sources that make no mention of them. Also, if you are affiliated with them, you need to make the appropriate declaration and will leave you additional information on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi S0091! I appreciate your detailed review. I see what you mean about the need for independent and in-depth sources to enhance the article's quality and neutrality. In the creation of the article, I have basically based the content and structure on other articles, and tried to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's style manual. Perhaps some of those articles I have seen about design studios were based on lists of mainstream competitions or prizes following a brief summary, and seldom about the studios relationship to its subject and practice.  I don't have any direct affiliation with the studio itself. As a former art and design student passionate about conceptual design and art I hope to contribute to Wikipedia in a specific field (design studios not focused on advertising and branding, but operating within the arts and culture) of design practices that is hard to find content of despite this fields development, parallell to traditional design and advertisng businesses, since the turn of the millenium. I’m very grateful for your detailed feedback and I’ll go over the article and try to make it more inline with wikipedias standards. Thank you for your time and assistance. Best wishes, Le Palais de Tokyo (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 331dot, and apologize for any newbie misbehaviour. Le Palais de Tokyo (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:39, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Le Palais de Tokyo

Hello I recently submitted my first article draft, and unfortunately, it was declined. I'm seeking some guidance on how to improve it and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. I'm eager to learn and make the necessary changes, so any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated. I posted this question in the Teahouse community feed as well. Any help or guidance is greatly appreciated! Le Palais de Tokyo (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above. S0091 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:57, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Chellers123

It's a small, but notable traction in the small town/city of Norway in Hønefoss Chellers123 (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft offered no sources whatsoever, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about topics that meet the notability guidelines, such as a notable event. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Musitafa Kalyowa

Can't see resubmit option Kalyowa Musita (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Musitafa Kalyowa: that's because this draft has been rejected, which means that resubmission is no longer possible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:08, 25 November 2023 review of submission by IDruben77

The proposed article was rejected because "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." I need some help on how to follow this guidelines because it seems to me that the text is written with a neutral point of view. Could anyone help out with improving it or pointing out what could be improved in the article? Thanks IDruben77 (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IDruben77 you need to fairly summarize what source state and attribute opinions. For example footnote 9 is an opinion piece so not something that can be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. For footnote 10, you summarize what the NAACP states but nothing else. What did Price say and are there independent sources with no affiliation to either Price or the NAACP that puts it context? Right now, it comes across as if you are pushing a narrative that aligns with a specific point of view even if that is not your intent. S0091 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @S0091 for providing feedback on areas for improvement in the article; your guidance is much appreciated. In response, I have made some adjustments. Firstly, I opted to delete footnote 9, as it was based on an WSJ opinion piece. Instead, I directly quoted Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price to ensure a more factual foundation.
Regarding footnote 10, it's essential to note that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) carries significant weight as a well-respected entity with over a century of history dedicated to racial justice and police accountability. Their stance against the perceived inactivity on crime in Oakland is noteworthy in itself, and it seems to me that that their position is not driven by partisanship. Upon revisiting the San Francisco Chronicle article, I found that, despite the journalist's attempt to contact the Office of the District Attorney, no response or alternative perspective was provided. Consequently, the article from the San Francisco Chronicle stands out as an independent source that diligently reported on this fact. I welcome any further suggestions on refining this section to ensure accuracy and clarity. IDruben77 (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Redstar0005

I would like to know if the sources I use in my article are reliable, if you have time, please review them. Redstar0005 (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redstar0005 Fan sites and IMDB are not reliable sources and generally neither is YouTube unless is a video by a reputable new organization or the like (see WP:RSPYT for additional information). S0091 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 25 November 2023 review of submission by Jack Massing

I guess that I have made a mistake in trying to publish an entry about myself. How can this be accomplished or could I do this? Jack Massing (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Massing Please read the Autobiography policy; writing about yourself, while not absolutely forbidden, is highly discouraged, in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

01:22, 26 November 2023 review of submission by 73.248.228.56

I just want to help people find the difference in the pronunciations of linguistics pls help 73.248.228.56 (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that is not what wikipedia is for. ltbdl (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:30, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Alexandracraig

I’m a talent manager and my client Alie Craig and I are trying to get her page published but it keeps getting kicked back for some reason. Can someone help us get this page published or at least tell us what is wrong with it.

Thanks. Alexandracraig (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is direct contact for myself. I would appreciate some insight as to why this page keeps getting kicked back with errors.
jason at kordmanagement.com Alexandracraig (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:49, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Alexandracraig

I don't know what to put down as the websites, there are so many different websites on my name I don't know which ones to choose. Please some assistance. Alexandracraig (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb, Amazon and YouTube are generally not independent, reliable sources and will need replacing. Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Imoveisavista

What advice can you give to me improve the text and get publication approved, please?

Thanks Nina Mattos Imoveisavista (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be published it was rejected and deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. You are likely to be blocked soon because of that. Theroadislong (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Agent2122

I would like to create a biography about Abdul Jackson . I read about him in Onetime . please help me Agent2122 (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to suggest that your topic is notable in Wikipedia terms and your draft has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agent2122 I don't think you just read about him since you took a picture of him and your username suggests you are his agent. You must respond to the inquiries I've made on your user talk page, or you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 26 November 2023 review of submission by SaneFlint

Now I'm being asked that my article is full of praise tone while I'm doing my best to write it in a neutral manner.

Someone can help me with that? SaneFlint (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SaneFlint: this draft has now been rejected (and not before time, IMO), and will therefore not be considered further. Time to drop it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:08, 26 November 2023 review of submission by ALA ALYAMAN

I do not intend to promote for myself, I aim to provide facts and experience about business to give hope and guide for youths. instead of speedy deletion while it is still a draft and meaningwhile I have a lot of resources of my studies you can advice me how to turn this to a researcher page and place my research for education materials and how to make it less about me. I don't mind that but I need my educational message to reach.

BR, Alaa ALA ALYAMAN (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for you to do those things, sorry. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ALA ALYAMAN please do not re-create this article again, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please go somewhere else to present your research and findings. Qcne (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:23, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Simodabir0

How can I fix it because it represents a character and not an advertisement or something like that? Simodabir0 (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simodabir0: this draft has been rejected and is pending deletion, so there is no way to "fix it". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:57, 26 November 2023 review of submission by SaneFlint

Someone here to see my article before I submit it? Just see if it's now in a neutral tone or not? SaneFlint (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews. The best way to find out is to submit it. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft has been declined 13 times and editor still doesn't appear to understand what we mean by neutral tone, WP:CIR seems to apply. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More context to this request here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Hi_Fam._Looking_for_some_assistance_please Qcne (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Laksh Creations

I need this content to be posted Laksh Creations (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Laksh Creations: this "content" will not be "posted", as it has been rejected and I have just requested speedy deletion on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Apugharamikolkata

i want help new page Apugharamikolkata (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. It is also unwise for you as an artist to post your work to Wikipedia Commons, as it makes it available for anyone to use for any purpose, including commercial, with attribution. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:07, 26 November 2023 review of submission by Archangelectra

I was declined for not having enough secondary sources, which I understand, but are news articles about the topic at hand considered secondary sources, or primary? Analysis of manuals and other specification based topics aren't done that often by secondary sources, and I do find this topic to be notable enough for an article in my opinion, as there is a Japanese wikipedia page for this topic, as well as a page for another type of Green Line vehicle, the type 8. Archangelectra (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Archangelectra it depends on the content within the article. If it is only mostly what those affiliated with topic say or first hand accounts, those are primary even the source is a third-party (see primary). Also, each Wikipedia language are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines so something acceptable on one does not mean it is acceptable on another and vice versa, though the English Wikipedia tends to be the most strict. S0091 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright, thank you for the help! And that's fair, regarding the strictness of the guidelines, I'll work on finding a few more secondary sources before I resubmit. Archangelectra (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:23, 26 November 2023 review of submission by 95.239.235.229

How do you insert the 'Authority control' template? 95.239.235.229 (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, that can only be used once the draft is accepted. S0091 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

01:56, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Coding.wiki

Please help me edit and submit this! Coding.wiki (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can resubmit it by clicking "Resubmit" on the draft(in the box at the top containing the most recent review). Is there specific help you are looking for? 331dot (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:49, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Samh100

Hello,

I am looking for assistance on two things.

1. I want to make sure that the title of the page stays the same. huupe is spelled with a lower case "h" as it is how the company prefers to spell it.

2. I want to add three images that are mine but the page will not let me add them. Can I please have assistance on having them added?

Best, Sam Samh100 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samh100 If you work for the company that produces this product, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI.
I believe the title can remain as it is from a technical standpoint. What matters is what independent reliable sources use as a spelling, not necessarily what the company wants.
Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until your draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia. New accounts cannot directly upload images, you may work with other editors via Files For Upload on doing so, but I would just wait as by the time the draft is accepted you will probably meet the criteria to be able to upload yourself(account is four days old with 10 edits or more). In order for it to be accepted, much promotional language needs to be removed. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:08, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Oluwafemi1726

Can you tell me why this was moved to the draft? I think when i first made it i had no sources, but every single one of my claims had a source, even the author's name and his wikipedia page was mentioned on the first paragraph. on my links were through internet archives, with the quotes i was using, making the link DIRECTLY accesible to everyone that clicks on it. So can you tell me what i did wrong? Oluwafemi1726 (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwafemi1726: you would have to ask the user who moved it to drafts why they did so, but I'm assuming it was for the same reason as why this has since been twice declined, ie. there isn't sufficient evidence that the subject is notable: a single source, especially what appears to be a primary one (travel journal, of sort), is very seldom enough, and certainly not enough to satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:20, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Taimour sheikh

I am making a draft for the first time on Wikipedia and my previous one got rejected because of promotional language. Even though I am connected to the organization I am making this draft for but its not my intention to promote them on wikipedia. Since I am a content writer I don't know how to use neutral language according to wikipedia guidelines and I am overwhelmed by so many restrictions. However, please check this new draft and tell me will it get approved or not because I have tried my best to not use any peacock terms here. Taimour sheikh (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Taimour sheikh: we don't do on-demand pre-reviews here at the help desk; submit your draft, and pretty soon you'll get a verdict. Note that promotionality is not just about the language and tone, it can also mean that you're saying what you want to say about the subject rather than summarising what independent secondary sources have said; that will inevitably result in promotional content. Looking at your sources, this is almost certainly the case here. You need to forget what you know about the subject, and instead find some sources that meet the WP:GNG standard and summarise them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you declared a conflict of interest- if you work for this organization, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. Please see your user talk page for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:31, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Gorkem80

The subject clearly satisfies #1 and #4 from the listed 8 notability criteria for academics. The listed references clearly demonstrate this. Could an editor help me understand if there is anything I am missing here?

06:58, 27 November 2023 review of submission by TshepoR

Request for help with improving the declined draft Good morning team, may I please be assisted with improving this draft, Draft:Khayalethu Anthony. It was recently declined because I couldn't place reliable sources. What helps me search for reliable sources? Please help a brother out. TshepoR (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TshepoR I fixed your post to provide a link for your draft as intended(you had other text there). We can't find reliable sources for you- it's up to you to gather them prior to writing- using search engines or your local library, to find sources with significant coverage of this person. Aside from the reliable sources issue you have some promotional language about his "journey" and "entering the arena"- Wikipedia articles are written very matter of factly and dry, without embellishment. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:25, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Spiggotr6

Is it true that Publishers Weekly and Booklist are not independent or reliable sources? I have used them in the past with no issues. Spiggotr6 (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book retailers are not independent because they have an interest in selling the book. If you've used such sources before, it's probably just pure chance that you got away with it, or you were given incorrect advice previously. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thank you for the help Spiggotr6 (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:21, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Danielleafrica

Hi everyone, I would just like to know why this article was rejected? Not enough content perhaps? Danielleafrica (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Danielleafrica. I declined your article because articles about organisations need to show they pass our WP:NORG criteria. There wasn't any indication that Alliance Media Africa passes this criteria with your current sources.
Can I also ask if you are an employee of Alliance Media Africa? Qcne (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne, I sure have a lot to learn still. I am an employee yes so I will try to go declare the paid editing policy, as well as conflict of interest policy now. Danielleafrica (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Danielleafrica It was not rejected, it was declined, the two terms have different meanings here- "rejected" means that a draft may not be resubmitted, "declined" means it may be resubmitted.
The only sources provided are associated with what I assume is your company- press releases and the company website. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company(i.e. not press releases or announcements) showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared per the Terms of Use, see the paid editing policy, as well as conflict of interest.
You claimed the logo of your company as your own personal work- this makes it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. Did you create the logo yourself? 331dot (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot, thanks for your message. A previous graphic designer of the company created the logo, the company has made small edits since, but the initial work was done by a former employee. Should I load it as something different? Would really appreciate the guidance here. Danielleafrica (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Danielleafrica You must immediately request deletion of the logo from Commons- Commons only hosts images free of copyright issues- or at least you need to claim it as the work of the company, not your personal work- if they want to make their logo available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution(I wouldn't want to do that, but it's up to your company).
Logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules. See WP:UPIMAGE. Fair use does carry some restrictions- like being unable to be used in drafts- but it does permit logos to be in articles.
Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about uploading images until and if you draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@33dot, okay thank you. I will try to request deletion right now and re-upload later. Danielleafrica (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please make the paid editing disclosure first- I've place instructions on how to do so on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 27 November 2023 review of submission by 197.148.73.153

I do not understand why this was not accepted, or what more is needed. The artist is one of the leading musicians of the country, but as it is one of the smaller countries in African print media, especially online, is not going to be as readily available. 197.148.73.153 (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues Editor:
  1. We need in-line citations for every single material statement. This is a hard requirement for biographies of living people. See the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.
  2. You need to prove that Barhama meets our WP:NMUSICIAN criteria. Do this through the use of significant coverage of Barhama in multiple secondary sources that are independent and reliable.
Qcne (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to provide significant coverage of the subject and show they meet the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:21, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Anthon Caesar

need help with my biography Anthon Caesar (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthon Caesar Wikipedia is not a social media website like Facebook, it is not a place to tell the world about yourself. Qcne (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:02, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Karl.zylinski

Can this be re-reviewed? I have updated the article with additional sources that I think should make the article more reliable. I have also changed the structure somewhat to make the article clearer. Finally I removed some sections that had a lack of sources or that seemed subjective. Karl.zylinski (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, typically meaning it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. Personally, I'm not seeing it- the draft is highly technical and does not seem to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say is important/significant/influential about this programming language, what we term notability. Are you associated with this language? 331dot (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Ilghibellinfuggiasco

Hi there. My entry was declined for it says it is not supported by adequate sources. I was helped by other users in developing the page and thought I came to a decent result. From the last rejection I understand that only the sources in the reliable sources list page are taken into consideration? I have put dozens and dozens of sources, all verifiable, mostly Italian well-known magazines, and apparently this is still not enough. It is especially frustrating because I continuously see a lot of pages that have 3 or 4 sources, all outside the "reliable list" and apparently there is no problem with them. Maybe I put too many? I would like some help in understanding how to improve the sourcing. I can add several more, or reduce. Thanks! romeoandjuliet (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilghibellinfuggiasco As odd as it may sound, you actually have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. What are your three (and only three, please) best sources?
Be aware that other articles that you view might also be inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this- that another article exists does not mean that it is problem free. See other stuff exists. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles.
As an aside, you altered your signature to display something very different from your username, this makes it hard for others to link to your username and communicate with you. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I did not know that username and signature would have to be the same. I will revert my signature back to my username then. I'm still learning.
Yes I may have put a lot of sources, surely too many, in an attempt to understand what needs to be sourced and what doesn't. Will reconsider the whole source list and narrow them down to the best ones. romeoandjuliet (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Jrg valdez

Σ Jrg valdez (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but three characters will never be accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:12, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Kodakararajeev36


Kodakararajeev36 (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:51, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Rblack1185

What specifically is causing this to be declined for lack of notability? It's a large, privately-held organization that holds numerous, reliable resources to illustrate its notability, including partnerships with other major organizations. This would be a great encyclopedic page that outlines the company's evolving history. There are pages with less notability than this organization, and certainly pages with similar notability. Rblack1185 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rblack1185 Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and just not addressed yet.
You declared a COI, what is the general nature of it?
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your draft did not do that, which is why it was rejected. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. My COI is that I am employed by the company, but that should have no bearing since I claimed the COI.
As for the reliable sources, there are 9 sources that are reliable in nature. There is nothing claimed in the article that is not backed by a reputable resource. How can we get this reviewed again, or approved in general? Rblack1185 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are NOT reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Insulation2

I tried to look up hide.me VPN on Wikipedia. It seems that someone decided to reject an article about it, despite Wikipedia having pages for several other VPN companies, e.g. Proton VPN, NordVPN, ExpressVPN, and many others. It seems unreasonable to have articles about some VPN companies and not others. I am not connected with hide.me in any way and only found out about it today - I was googling for VPNs that offer full IPv6 support. Insulation2 (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every company in a field merits an article, it depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources showing that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you just learned of this company, what motivated you to write about it? My first thought when learning of a company is not to run to Wikipedia and write about it. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Qstor2

want to resubmit page. - question what's wrong with Reference #3? It's not "showing up" correctly for a webpage I think. Qstor2 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qstor2: it was just missing one of the closing double curly brackets of the cite tag. Fixed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 27 November 2023 review of submission by KSienkiewicz

Hi! I have tried to publish a page of a film that I am working on. I am a Polish distributor of the film, and also a Post-production manager and PR manager internationally. I added references but it was still declined and I don't know how else can I make it authentic enough to get past verification. KSienkiewicz (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KSienkiewicz: the first thing you need to do is disclose your conflict of interest, see WP:PAID.
This draft was declined because the sources aren't sufficient to establish notability either per WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:27, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Rahmanibnusaid

I'm sure my article was correct. Rahmanibnusaid (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be correct, but he is not notable, which is why the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 27 November 2023 review of submission by 195.252.198.127

This information here is a collection of information that enthusiasts have painfully gathered over the years. There are hundreds, probably thousands of hours in collecting all of this info. Toyota does not publish this info, there is no authoritative source on this information but that makes this information even more important because there is no alternative source for it even if you pay Toyota for their technician subscription service.

I do donate to wikipedia and this is a big part of why i use it. Please don't delete this amazing source of information. 195.252.198.127 (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor, I thank you for donating, but that has no impact on the consideration of articles. Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation and go towards running the computers Wikipedia is on, as well as other Foundation activities. We don't get the money.
Wikipedia is not a mere database of information- it summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You have just compiled technical information, you have not summarized any reliable sources as to why this transmission is notable. I would suggest finding an alternative forum to host this information, such as a personal website. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:40, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Redstar0005

Can you please review this page and tell me what I should work on before I submit it again? Thanks! Redstar0005 (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the advice left by reviewers pretty much covers it. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:51, 27 November 2023 review of submission by CreatorNotConsumer

Can you explain why this article got rejected? Why don’t sources 5, 6, 17, and 18 count as notable? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. So why did it get declined? How do the sources I listed fail WP:CORP? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CreatorNotConsumer have you read WP:NCORP? The sources I checked (NYT, Financial Times, etc.) are mostly what those affiliated say or are not in-depth. Others are likewise not independent and/or not reliable (sources like CoinDesk, forums, have no editorial oversight, etc.) with some making no mention of Manifold so not useful. S0091 (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’ve read it carefully and checked the four sources I listed against the each of the guidelines. I have trouble understanding how the NYT and FT articles don’t qualify as significant coverage, given the amount of reporting and analysis each devote to Manifold in those sources. CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are Bloomberg and TDN not reliable or independent? They each have editorial oversight and significantly cover Manifold in their articles. I’d be so grateful if you could explain to me what it is that I’m missing. CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read 6 as it is paywalled(which is fine, I just can't see it). 5 seems to talk about prediction markets as a broad concept and discussed this particular one very little. The other two sources don't seem to have significant coverage about why this particular prediction market is important/significant/influential- why it is notable. I've seen this described as a "startup"- startups almost never merit articles. A company must be established and recognized in its field before sources start giving it the needed coverage. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you’ll read the full NYT article (5), you’ll see that the majority of the text is about Manifold, especially about the reporter’s experience at the Manifold conference. What makes you call that “very little”? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to say earlier—-thanks so much for your help! A few more things: In what way is the Bloomberg newsletter not describing Manifold as notable? It explains that Manifold is a site from which you can gauge the opinion of engaged people with “skin in the game,” and includes a screenshot of the site and uses it as an indicator of popular sentiment about what will happen in the future. By explaining its usefulness, doesn’t that mean the article shows that the site is notable? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The TDN article states that they will be creating Manifold markets for each of their story posts going forward, so that readers can bet on what will happen in the future of the story covered. Is it notable that they are using Manifold as a tool to get the general opinion of their users? CreatorNotConsumer (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:26, 27 November 2023 review of submission by Coding.wiki

I have all my sources. Why am I not able to have this published? Coding.wiki (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

00:33, 28 November 2023 review of submission by W. Russell Smith

I am very new to creating pages and want to make sure everything is done correctly and by the book. I created a draft from a document I wrote in Word and then cut and pasted it into wiki. I am not sure how to use citations. It is all so new that it seems impossible! Please help. W. Russell Smith (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:10, 28 November 2023 review of submission by BootNet

He is a famous Indian Islamic scholar, he should have a Wikipedia article. BootNet (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1187244773"